A stale claim for regular absorption cannot be revived after prolonged delay.

The appellants had worked as contract labourers at Tuticorin Thermal Power Station.

They claimed to have completed 480 days of service and to be eligible for absorption under B.P.(FB) No.17 dated 28 April 1999.

After the contract system was abolished, they were directly engaged and paid time-scale wages from 1 May to 27 October 1999, but their services ceased from 28 October 1999.

They did not challenge the alleged termination at the time.

After pursuing representations and earlier writ petitions, they challenged orders rejecting their absorption claim in W.P.(MD) No.9661 of 2015.

The Single Judge dismissed that petition on 9 July 2019, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether the appellants established a right to regular absorption under B.P.(FB) No.17 based on their claimed 480 days of service

2. Whether the appellants could obtain absorption relief after leaving service in 1999 and pursuing their claim only after substantial delay

The Court applied B.P.(FB) No.17 dated 28 April 1999 and the applicable absorption scheme, holding that proof of 480 days’ service alone does not create an indefeasible right to absorption; eligibility depends on satisfying all prescribed requirements.

It also applied the principles against granting relief on stale claims: a claim pursued after inordinate delay, particularly where the underlying termination was not timely challenged and no subsisting right was established, cannot be revived.

No statute or judicial precedent was cited.

The Court held that the appellants’ alleged certification of 480 days’ service did not dispense with the other requirements of the Board Proceedings or establish an automatic right to appointment.

Their claim had been considered and rejected by the competent authorities.

Further, they had been out of service since 28 October 1999, had not timely challenged their termination, and had pursued absorption only after considerable delay.

The Court also found that the case of another worker, Narayanan, did not establish parity without proof that the material facts and legal circumstances were identical.

The writ appeal was dismissed, with no order as to costs.